Prosser earlier asked Abrahamson, Bradley and Justice Patience Roggensack to remove themselves from the case. None has said what she will do.

Prosser has said he will not participate in the case. If three others step aside, the ethics case cannot proceed. That's because four of the seven justices must participate to take any action.

It seems like the real question here is how (not whether) they will get to 4 recusals. Why did Prosser ask Abrahamson, Bradley and Justice Patience Roggensack first and then Crooks when he hasn't asked Ziegler and Gableman? It seems like a game designed to get to 4 using more liberal members of the court, with Ziegler and Gableman held in reserve and usable to get to 4 if the liberals won't recuse.

"It seems like a game designed to get to 4 using more liberal members of the court, with Ziegler and Gableman held in reserve and usable to get to 4 if the liberals won't recuse."

Well, he started out by asking the three women to recuse, even though they were similarly situated with at least two of the men. So why not look at it through that lens instead? If you do, you might even be able to conjure up a way to stretch Batson to apply to it. Whoopie! Prosser using unconstitutional tactics in desperate attempt ... blah-blah-blah.

That the liberals piss and moan and file complaints when they don't get their way, while the conservatives are more mature than that?

Ah, no. Gableman has been hit twice, for very good reasons. The last complaint was for receiving free legal help to deal with the first ethics complaint, and then ruling on cases (in favor) of the same firm that gave him the free legal help.

My understanding of the “free legal help” that Justice Gableman received was that the law firm agreed to represent him on a contingency basis, i.e. if Gableman “won” the case, he would be eligible to have his legal fees paid for as the prevailing party but if he didn’t “win,” the attorneys would collect nothing other than their ordinary legal expenses (which I believe they said that Justice Gableman reimbursed them for).

I’m not aware that the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct “expressly forbid[s]” a judge hiring an attorney on a contingency basis.

That's ridiculous Thorley and I think you know it. Gableman ruled on 8 different cases where MB&F represented one of the parties. The reason Gableman didn't "win" is because the court deadlocked 3-3. 100k in never invoiced legal fees isn't a gift?

One example? Hard to choose, but let's go with your claim that Zimmerman hadn't been beaten, based upon the grainy, possibly edited video by ABC, coupled with your claim that he couldn't have had a broken nose, because you saw no blood. This, despite the publicly available police report in which the police stated otherwise.

You chose to believe it was a cover up. "I have my reasons " was the phrase you used. No evidence, just "reasons" that just happened to fit with your preconceived and ill conceived beliefs, as well as your partisan motives.

All four conservative justices have had an ethics complaint filed against them.

With one verbal reprimand to show for it.

The Ziegler and Gableman-Best failure to recuse charges are at least understandable, though I don't know if they rise to the level of "ethics" charges any more than Kagan's decision not to recuse during the Obamacare trial. But the Gableman political ad charges and this charge against Prosser for a highly contentious accusation without poof are just petty name-calling and an attempt to un-democratically change election outcomes.

You wrote "There was nothing to indicate any of that happened to Zimmerman from those tapes. Certainly no broken nose as his father claimed. He's lying." that was your 12:57 bit of wisdom.

He, in this situation referring to Zimmerman's dad. You, from what, 1500 miles away, knew he was not just wrong, but lying. Nice.

Your "I have my reasons" comment came in later, at 4:14, as in "I think they are lying. I have my reasons, you are free to disagree."Later, you enlightened us on your reasons, which were not reasons, but more assertions that they were lying. That was in your 7:16 post, in which, I will grant that you admitted you could be totally wrong.

I will also admit that you weren't the only one to look bad on the whole affair. Lots of people, on several blogs I read made lots of assertions about what "must have happened," and that "it couldn't have happened any other way." Starts with NBC and the New York Times.

You wrote "There was nothing to indicate any of that happened to Zimmerman from those tapes. Certainly no broken nose as his father claimed. He's lying." that was your 12:57 bit of wisdom.

There was nothing from the tapes that indicated his head was bashed on the concrete or had a broken nose. I think he IS lying. Big fucking whup. Deal with it. The prosecutors appear to agree with me. He is being charged with murder, no?

The police report, available at the time, and linked in that thread states you're wrong.

Of course, you "have your reasons." What you fail to understand is that those "reasons" are based on nothing other than your own preconceived ideas and biases. You think he is lying, but you have nothing on which to base that. Pictures at the scene show that Zimmerman was bloodied. The police report states that he was bloody. The EMT report states that he was bloody. Zimmerman's hospital records (of course this comes from Zimmerman's lawyer, so careful) state he was treated for a broken nose.

'm not the one who decided Zimmerman was lying, and who still states he was lying about the injuries in the face of evidence to the contrary. With no evidence otherwise.

When I wrote the comment, I saw zero evidence of the claim his nose was broken or his head being bashed into a sidewalk. If you have some official evidence that his nose was broken or his head being bashed onto a sidewalk, feel free to LINK to it.

But you still maintain he's lying, even after you know of the evidence.

On the March 29 thread, you were directed by Ken, at 10:39 to a report that Zimmerman had been treated by paramedics at the scene. At 2:57 in the same thread, Bender linked to the police reports. The reports have since been taken down, but Bender describes them earlier in the thread.

It must take quite a bit of effort to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't fit your theory that is based upon no evidence. Oh, except your "reasons."

On the March 29 thread, you were directed by Ken, at 10:39 to a report that Zimmerman had been treated by paramedics at the scene. At 2:57 in the same thread, Bender linked to the police reports. The reports have since been taken down, but Bender describes them earlier in the thread.

Nothing about a broken nose or his head being bashed into the concrete. Which were the claims made.

It must take quite a bit of effort to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't fit your theory that is based upon no evidence. Oh, except your "reasons."

SDN, the evidence has been out there for quite awhile, and Garage is well aware of it. He chooses to ignore it. He has his reasons, but my guess is that they will unnecessarily complicate his world view.q

Until we have a medical report describing the injuries at the scene or shortly thereafter by a qualified medical professional, and until we have the evidence taken from the crime scene injuries, we got jack shit.

It appears the the injuries were cleaned. STOOPID. They're part of the crime scene and the evidence. The police have a dead guy, shot. They have the shooter. Their first prioprity is to secure the scene, and that means the evidence on Z as well. It appears they didn't, that it got washed away. This pisses me off. It's either gross incompetence, or the unfortunate implication is that it's just another dead black kid. "We don't need no stinkin' evidence".

"Their first prioprity is to secure the scene, and that means the evidence on Z as well"

NO, actually the first priority is to administer first aid.

I assume you didn't see the photo linked by SDN? That is evidence. Eyewitness testimony from the paramedics and the police officers is also evidence.

Did you see the police report in the link? Statements from eyewitnesses? Eyewitness testimony from neighbors. Any documents or evidence tends to support Zimmerman. Rants and speculation from the left are all the left has to hold on to their precious dream that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton remain relevant in this case.

Patrick, we could argue about this all night, but the first priority is to secure the scene so that it doesn't get worse. Once the scene is safe (and usually part of securing the scene is to secure any persons who might be dangerous, and weapons), then triage. If the injuries are not life threatening or do not require immediate medical intervention, you secure the evidence on scene. If the person has to go to the hospital, you secure the evidence at the hospital.

As far as I can tell, Z's injuries were treated, but not treated as evidence. Having evidence secured work's in Z's favor too, you know.

Garage and leslyn write grammatical sentences, They must have some intelligence. One senses that their private lives are not wastelands of malignity, yet there's this....Think of all the politically or racially charged trals we've had during the past fifty years. Look at the evidence that was demanded in order to convict in those trials. Look at the evidence they have against Zimmerman. Can anyone honestly say that there is more evidence against Zimmerman than there is against Mumia or Ray Lewis?